MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1898227670 · doi:10.1109/tools.1997.681887

Object-Oriented Testing

2005· article· en· W1898227670 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paul Strooper

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSystem integration testingWhite-box testingSoftware reliability testingManual testingSoftware engineeringNon-regression testingKeyword-driven testingSoftware performance testingIntegration testingBlack-box testingObject-oriented programmingTest strategySoftware constructionTest Management ApproachSoftwareClass (philosophy)Software testingSystem testingProgramming languageSoftware developmentArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In contrast to the explosion of activity in object-oriented design and programming, relatively little attention has been given to object testing. The proposed tutorial discusses problems and potential solutions with the testing of object-oriented software. After a brief introduction in which the testing of 00 software is compared with the testing of more traditional software, an in-depth look is taken at two approaches to the testing of 00 software. The first is a method for the testing of 00 systems that is used by MPR Teltech, a Canadian telecommunications company. In this method, the ACE tool is used to automatically test individual classes. The second is the ClassBench methodology and framework for the testing of collection classes, which has been used to test several classes from commercial class libraries.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.004

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Testing and Debugging TechniquesFrench-language works237,207